Educational support for newly arrived migrant children

130 Pages·2013·2.21 MB·English

by  Indrė Balčaitė

Study on
educational support
migrant children
for newly arrived
Final report
m
o
ock.c
erst
utt
h
h / S
hi
g C Written by
n
u
h
C
g
n
u
H
©
Education and
Training
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) C ertain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers
or these calls may be billed.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013
© European Union, 2013
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Publications Office of the European Union
2013 — 134 pp. — 21 x 29,7 cm
ISBN 978-92-79-27950-8
doi: 10.2766/41204
© European Union, 2012
This document has been prepared for the European Commission. However, it
reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

The core research team:
• Mr Rimantas Dumčius, Project Director, Public Policy and Management
Institute;
• Ms Hanna Siarova, Researcher, Public Policy and Management Institute;
• Prof Dr Idesbald Nicaise, Lead Researcher, Research Centre for Work and
Society, the Catholic University of Leuven;
• Dr Jana Huttova, Senior Researcher, Public Policy and Management
Institute;
• Ms Indrė Balčaitė, Researcher, Public Policy and Management Institute.

Contributors of case studies: Other contributors:

• Dr Aigul Alieva (LU) • Ms Claudia Koehler
• Dr Ellen Boeren (BE) • Dr Elena Papamichael
• Dr Panayiota Charalambous (CY) • Dr Antonio Ricci
• Dr Merike Darmody (IE) • Dr Marie Louise Seeberg
• Mr Regis Guyon (FR) • Dr Melissa Siegel
• Dr Martin Bak Jorgensen (DK) • Dr Naomi Tyrrell
• Dr Jenny Kallstenius (SE)
• Dr Mikael Luciak (AT)
• Ms Violeta Podagelyte (IT)
• Dr Catherine Vassilikou (EL)

Acknowledgements:
The team responsible for this report would like to thank all the interviewees,
experts and the officials in the European Commission, Member State
organisations and stakeholders who contributed their time, expertise and
assistance to us during the research and writing of this report.

Contractor:

Public Policy and Management Institute
Gedimino avenue 50, LT-01110 Vilnius, Lithuania
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
http://www.ppmi.lt
Director Mr Haroldas Brožaitis
January 2013 3
Contents

Contents ............................................................................................... 4
Exective summary .................................................................................. 5
Tables and figures ................................................................................. 25
Introduction ......................................................................................... 26
Chapter 1: research context ................................................................... 28
1.1.Newly arrived migrants as a distinctive category in
education studies .................................................................. 28
1.2.Factors affecting the integration of NAMS into formal
education ............................................................................. 29
1.3.Educational support for newly arrived migrant children......... 34
Chapter 2: methodology ........................................................................ 37
2.1.Framework for analysis .................................................... 37
2.1.1. Definitions .......................................................... 37
2.1.2. Framework for analysis ........................................ 38
2.1.3. Research questions ............................................. 39
2.2.Scope of the study ........................................................... 40
2.2.1. Country sample .................................................. 40
2.2.2. Time frame ........................................................ 41
2.3.Research design .............................................................. 41
2.3.1. Policy mapping ................................................... 42
2.3.2. Case studies ....................................................... 42
2.3.3. Comparative analysis........................................... 47
2.3.4. Good practices .................................................... 47
Chapter 3: Educational support for newly arrived migrant students in
europe: comparative analysis ................................................................. 48
3.1. Targeting of NAMS in education policy ............................... 48
3.2. Education system design characteristics ............................ 49
Chapter 4: Educational support models .................................................... 63
Chapter 5: Performance of educational support models .............................. 76
5.1. Reaching objectives of better NAMS inclusion ..................... 76
5.1.1 Access ................................................................... 76
5.1.2. Participation .......................................................... 78
5.1.3. Performance .......................................................... 81
5.2. Other factors explaining country differences in integration
of NAMS ............................................................................... 83
Chapter 6: Towards an effective comprehensive and inclusive model ........... 89
6.1. Framework conditions – education system characteristics .... 89
6.2. Thematic support policies ................................................ 92
6.2.1. Linguistic support................................................... 92
6.2.2. Academic support .................................................. 97
6.2.3. Parental and community involvement ..................... 102
6.2.4. Intercultural education ......................................... 108
6.3. Monitoring and policy implementation ............................. 110
Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................ 112
List of references ................................................................................ 122
European Union documents .................................................. 122
Other sources ..................................................................... 123

January 2013 4
Executive Summary
Key messages to policy makers

The Study on educational support to newly arrived migrant children (NAMS) has
identified three main messages that policy makers should take into consideration while
designing integration policies for NAMS through education.

Firstly, an integrated approach to NAMS’s inclusion is important. Targeted policy
response to NAMS’ needs will only work effectively in an inclusive and comprehensive
education system that is already favourable for the integration of newly arrived
migrant children. Therefore, policy makers should pay more attention to the overall
structure of the education system and its effects on NAMS’ inclusion rather than the
individual support measures targeted at NAMS. This integrated approach should
provide equal opportunities for NAMS to develop, as much as possible, within the
mainstream education system and guarantee additional or remedial support, when
necessary, in all areas, not only host language teaching. It is important to tailor
educational support to individual needs and continue it throughout the general
education in all key areas including linguistic and academic support, parental and
community involvement and intercultural education.

Secondly, identification of NAMS as a specific target group in education is not a pre-
requisite for having a good and comprehensive integration policy. Often NAMS fall into
a broader category of students with immigrant background or students with a different
mother tongue. The analysis shows that universal and loosely targeted education
mechanisms aimed at supporting all underachieving students or immigrant students
are often more inclusive and beneficial for NAMS in particular. Countries focusing on
the development of comprehensive educational support systems addressing all kinds
of individual needs contribute to the development of more inclusive education systems
for NAMS in the long-run than those focusing on the targeted measures for NAMS.

Finally, a combination of discretion and national monitoring should be ensured for
effective implementation of policies. Currently even though most European countries
recognize the importance of NAMS’ integration into education system at the policy
level, there are certain discrepancies in implementation of national priorities at the
regional and local levels. The schools are either left to themselves in following broad
national guidelines and allocating the funds (e.g. Italy or Sweden) or, the opposite,
education providers do not have autonomy to tailor the entitled support to individual
needs and adjust national policies to the local circumstances (e.g. Cyprus and
Greece). The reasons for implementation gaps are most often the lack of monitoring
and control in the former case and the lack of school discretion in the latter one.
Therefore, schools and municipalities should be given a reasonable level of autonomy,
so that they can better address the specificities of local needs, as decentralisation is
an important engine for educational system adjustment. But at the same time it is
important for governments to develop a comprehensive system of monitoring and
evaluation of implemented policies and achievements of migrant children. There are
huge gaps in basic information on the situation of immigrant students and their
educational performance, which makes it hard to determine whether systems are
effective or equitable in reaching immigrant students and meeting their learning
needs.

January 2013 5
Newly arrived migrant children is an increasing disadvantaged group in
European schools

Net migration to Europe1 has tripled since 1960. Some countries have long histories of
immigration; others have experienced an unprecedented increase in the last decade.
Immigration is a global phenomenon, but there are large variations among countries
in the size of migrant flows and the ethnic profile of immigrants. Teaching immigrant
students is becoming an important part of reality in an increasing number of European
schools. E.g. in 2009/2010 academic year there were 17.6% of students with the first
language other than German registered in Austrian schools; in Flanders the number of
NAMS enrolled in primary education has doubled in three academic years (since
2006/2007 to 2009/2010); in Greece the percentage of ‘other-language’ students in pre-primary,
primary and secondary schools for the school year 2010-11 has risen to 12%, while it used to be 7.3% in
2006-072. Policy makers, local communities and schools face urgent questions on how to
better accommodate the needs of this category of students through education policies
and practices. Moreover, migrant children have a diversity of backgrounds and needs,
which require flexible and inclusive approaches.

Newly arrived migrant students (further - NAMS) are a new target group that has not
yet been explicitly identified and defined within EU policy-making and that of many
European countries. NAMS are included in some of the large scale survey samples
(PISA, Thomas and Collier’s), but they are not always differentiated from the native
born second generation immigrants. Often they are put into a broader category of
“students with migrant background”. Although NAMS do share some characteristics
with second-generation immigrant children and may encounter some of the same
challenges at school, in many ways they are in a more precarious situation.

With some exceptions, NAMS, on average, have weaker education outcomes at all
levels of education. They often have more restricted access to quality education, are
less likely to participate in pre-primary education, more prone to drop out before
completing upper secondary education, more likely to have lower academic scores and
to attend schools that mainly serve students with less advantaged social backgrounds.
In 2010 there were 25.9% of foreign born students dropped out from education and
training against 13% of native ones3 and PISA surveys confirms the lower
achievement of first-generation immigrants compared to native students (the average
score difference in OECD countries in 2009 was 50 points)4. This requires new policy
approaches from the governments and the adaptation of education systems.
NAMS face greater challenges in education than their native peers

The first challenge that NAMS and their parents face is accessing quality education
that could give better chances of succeeding in their lives. Although the access to
education in European countries is generally granted regardless immigrant status, the
main issue that NAMS face when enrolling at school is segregation. In many European
countries migrant students are segregated in lower quality schools with fewer
resources than those attended by native students. School segregation is in many
cases caused by the design of the education system itself such as early ability tracking
or residence requirement as a prerequisite for enrolment.

1 The author refers here to the current EU-27 countries. Eurostat statistical book, Migrants in Europe, A
Statistical portrait of the first and second generation, 2011. Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-31-10-539/EN/KS-31-10-539-EN.PDF [Accessed
19 July 2012].
2 Policy mapping reports produced under the current study.
3 Eurostat (LFS), 2009.
4 PISA Results 2009.
January 2013 6
Once access to quality education is ensured for migrant children, it is important that
students stay at school and complete their education. Early school leavers are more
likely to be from a lower socio-economic background, vulnerable social groups or
groups at risk. Immigrants tend to fall into these categories of society much more
often than native population. In 2010 the early school leaving rate among immigrant
students was 25.9% against 13% among native ones5.
In school NAMS usually have lower academic achievement than their peers. The
performance gap is more common for immigrant students who speak a different
language at home (other than the language of instruction) and for those in a
disadvantaged socio-economic situation6. However, in many countries, the
performance gap between immigrant and native students remains even after
accounting for language and socio-economic background7.
Policy makers that are willing to facilitate integration of immigrant children into
general education systems should take into consideration the heterogeneity of
immigrant population itself. Different ethnic groups succeed differently within the
same educational framework. However, ethnic origin is not the only and sometimes
not even the main cause of migrant children’s underperformance at schools. Socio-
economic background, time of immigration and host-country language skills might all
influence access to quality schooling, levels of academic achievement and successful
attainment of at least upper-secondary qualifications.
Educational support models – the current policy responses in Europe

The study identified four types of educational support policies that facilitate the
integration of NAMS’ in their education systems: linguistic support, academic support,
outreach and cooperation and intercultural education. The mix of these policies along
with the general characteristics of education systems provides the basis for distinct
educational support models. The key structural characteristics of education systems
that affect integration of NAMS include age of first ability tracking, level of
centralisation of education system and free school choice or catchment area
requirement. The analysis of the education systems and delivery of educational
support measures for NAMS helped to identify five distinct types of educational
support systems:

 Comprehensive support model (examples: Denmark, Sweden)

Comprehensiveness of the support implies that all four types of support are well
developed and education systems are in other ways inclusive. Countries representing
this model provide continuous support to development of linguistic skills, teaching
support and assistance in transferring students to higher levels of education.
Decentralised education and high school autonomy goes together with strong focus on
outreach to parents and local community. Intercultural learning is mainstreamed into
education. Countries pay a lot of attention to creating a positive school environment
through trained teaching staff and various intercultural initiatives.

5 Eurostat (LFS), 2009.
6 European Commission, “Progress towards the common European objectives in education and training:
indicators and benchmarks 2010/2011”, Commission staff working document, April 2011.
7 PISA Results 2009.
January 2013 7
 Non-systematic support model (examples: Italy, Cyprus, Greece)

The model is characterised by randomness of the support provided. Countries that are
attributed to this group have no clearly articulated policy on the national level to
support the integration of newly arrived migrant children or such policy exists, but is
not effectively resourced and implemented. The support provided at regional, local
and/or school level is highly fragmented as teachers, parents and local communities
are largely left to their own devices.

 Compensatory support model (examples: Belgium, Austria)

The model includes all types of support policies with only academic support being a
rather weak aspect that is further undermined by early ability tracking and streaming
systems. Countries provide ongoing teaching of the host language as a second
language and the mother tongue to the largest groups of migrants (e.g. Austria in
regular schools). Parents of NAMS are encouraged to cooperate with schools through
the provision of resource persons and interpretation services. The support provided is
essentially compensatory - aiming to correct the ‘differences’ between immigrant and
native students, rather than tackling the initial disadvantage.

 Integration model (example: Ireland)

Linguistic support is not a central focus of this model as it stops after several
introductory years and no mother tongue teaching or teaching English as a second
language is offered continuously throughout the schooling process. The systems for
welcoming NAMS, arrangements for assessment of prior schooling and support programs
for underachieving students are well developed. Particular strengths of this model are well
developed outreach and cooperation and intercultural education policies. Liaison
between school, parents and local community is systematic, while intercultural
learning is well integrated into the curricula and promoted in school daily life.

 Centralised entry support model (examples: France, Luxembourg).

The focus of the model is on the centralised reception of migrant children and the
provision of academic support as the main driver of educational inclusion. Both
countries provide a centralised reception desk, assessment of prior schooling and
welcoming arrangements for NAMS. Targeted support programmes for under-
achieving students are well developed. Linguistic support and outreach to migrant
parents/communities are also rather well developed.
Essential inclusion factors

Analysis revealed that the effectiveness of targeted educational support measures is
undermined by less inclusive education environments. The best results can be
expected when the inclusion of NAMS is addressed through an integrated approach: a
combination of regulatory and managerial reforms aimed to make education system
more inclusive accompanied with well-financed targeted measures to provide NAMS
with comprehensive support to eliminate their educational disadvantage.

It is essential to avoid school segregation as it impedes successful integration of NAMS
into formal education. There is evidence to support that catchment area requirement
decreases school segregation and makes school education more inclusive. When
catchment area requirements are not possible to implement, other measures should
be provided to ensure that NAMS have a chance to learn together with their native
January 2013 8
peers. This can include provision of immigrant parents with help and information on
school selection, improving the quality of provision in ‘migrant’ schools or dispersal
policies aimed at equal distribution of migrant students among schools in the region.
The latter are particularly helpful when mitigating the effects of already existing
residential segregation of immigrants.

Ensuring equal opportunities is vital for NAMS’ integration into formal education. Initial
language barriers and sometimes the lack of prior schooling prevent NAMS from
succeeding at school to the extent their native peers do. Systems that practice early
tracking and streaming of students according to their abilities tend to widen the
performance gap between migrant and native pupils, depriving NAMS of access to the
more prestigious academic tracks. If tracking at a later stage is not possible in the
education system, then provisions should be made to allow for the possibility of
catching up and changing tracks when skills improve.

Schools should be given a reasonable level of autonomy, so that they can better adapt
to and cater for the local needs. Decentralisation is an important engine for
educational system adjustment. The analysis suggests that schools with a higher
degree of autonomy coupled with clear policy and performance management
framework at national level can more easily and effectively adapt to the needs of
NAMS and other disadvantaged groups. Centralised systems could be incrementally
adapted to focus on performance of schools rather than regulating their inputs and
allow schools a greater flexibility in choosing their means based on local needs and
circumstances.

Performance management relies on the ability to measure the integration and
achievements of NAMS into education systems. The study has showed that basic data
is still lacking in most of the analysed countries with few good practice examples.
Therefore it is essential to track the access, participation and performance of NAMS in
mainstream education in comparison to other groups of students as well as the
performance of schools that accommodate NAMS in comparison to other schools. This
requires investment into monitoring and evaluation systems as well as improvements
in collection of education statistics.

Inclusive framework conditions can be successfully complemented by a number of
support measures; in certain cases the negative effects of education system design
can be offset by inclusive support. It is important to ensure that education support
addresses the individual needs of each newly arrived migrant student. Therefore an
ideal education system should offer a combination of all types of education support:
linguistic, academic support, parental and community involvement and intercultural
education. The key elements of each type are provided below. Countries should be
careful to tailor policy choices to local circumstances.
A recommended policy mix for the integration of NAMS’ into education
systems

Linguistic support:

 Initial language support and adequate system of assessment of language
competences;
 Continuous host language support within or after regular class;
 Training of teachers in instructing the host language as a second language;
 Valuing and provision of mother tongue instruction.

January 2013 9
Academic support:

 Ensuring a well-developed reception of migrant students and initial assessment of
migrants’ education background;
 Placing NAMS into an appropriate class based on the assessment of their previous
schooling, abilities and needs;
 Monitoring system ensuring adequate tracking and diagnosis of student’s
performance and potential;
 Qualified teachers to work with culturally diverse students;
 Supporting transition mechanisms between reception and mainstream classes;
between different levels of education;
 Prevention of early-school leaving and provision of re-integration programmes.

Parental and community involvement:

 Encouraging parents to participate in NAMS’ education process, through home-
school tutors and partnerships;
 Encouraging school cooperation in sharing good practice experience in NAMS’
integration;
 Provision of detailed information about schools system and opportunities for
children.

Intercultural education:

 Ensuring a positive environment at school;
 Training of teachers for diversity;
 Facilitating communication between native and migrant peers through bilingual
coordinators and advisors.
January 2013 10